Beshalach answers

Alef.

1. What was the nature of Amalek’s transgression that it elicits such an extreme response from God, i.e., the Jews must obliterate literally and figuratively all remembrance of Amalek and what this people did.
2. Tanchuma: Amalek failed to be intimidated by the miracles that God Performed on behalf of the Jews as they left Egypt. Whereas Shemot 15:14-5 lists four great civilizations in the Middle east, i.e., the Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites and the Canaanites, as being incredibly fearful, Amalek demonstrated their lack of concern by attacking the Jews and thereby indirectly, the Jewish God.

Ibn Kaspi: God Judiciously Decides when to Forgive and when to Avenge, in accordance with the perpetrator and the offense. Apparently in this case, He Decided that Amalek deserved harsh treatment rather than compassion. (However, the commentator does not identify what precisely was Amalek’s sin.)

HaNeTzIV: God Wished to Impose His Authority upon the world via Israel and Giving them the Tora. Since Amalek was opposed to this, in effect, this nation was opposing the development of the ultimate plan that HaShem had Worked out for His Creation. Until Amalek would be eliminated, the plan could not go forward, thereby necessitating Amalek’s elimination.

Cassuto: Amalek was a threat to Israel’s security on its southern border. Israel would not be able to live in peace as long as Amalek lurked ready to strike and raid. Consequently Amalek had to be eliminated.

3. Tanchuma: The nations of the world were wary of taking on the Jews and God their Protector following the miracles associated with the Exodus.

Ibn Kaspi: The nations of the world posed the question why isn’t the Jewish God a Forgiving God, and despite what Amalek might have done, isn’t is appropriate to forgive, rather than desire to avenge or bear a grudge going into the future?

4. Whereas the other three interpretations deal in theological matters, (Tanchuma: daring to challenge God’s Omnipotence; Ibn Kaspi: questioning God’s Kindness and Compassion; HaNeTzIV: preventing the Tora from being given to humanity), Cassuto explains the issue as a national security matter. RaMBaM seems to state that unless there is a stable society, religious development will be unable to take place (See Guide II:40; “Igerret HaShmad”, in Igerot HaRaMBaM, RaMBaM LeAm, Mosad HaRav Kook, Yerushalayim, pp. 64 ff.). Consequently it could be said that Cassuto sees Amalek as interfering with a pre-requisite for the Jews becoming more comfortable with their religion, while the others are discussing that very development itself and how Amalek was interfering with it.

I Shmuel 30 describes how Amalek came from the south and invaded the city Ziklag which David had used as his base. The Amalekites despoiled the city and took captive the women and children within it.  

5. If one is supposed to remember everything written in the Tora, why are certain Mitzvot emphasized, including remembering what Amalek did, and we are Commanded to particularly remember these events?
6. Perhaps HaNeTzIV could rely on the phrase “Milchama LaShem Ba’Amalek MiDor Dor”. If the issue was whether God would be able to impose His Law on the world, then if Amalek opposes such a development, God will have to Fight against Amalek in order to eventually Get His Way.

Beit.

Yalkut Shimoni, reflecting on why the incident with Amalek is phrased in the manner that it is in Devarim, suggests that Amalek came to punish the Jews for their shortcomings. However, if this was directly mentioned, it would be embarrassing to the Jews. Consequently the emphasis is upon what Amalek did to them, rather than their role in setting Amalek loose upon them.

Gimel.

1.א. According to Mizrachi, whereas the Midrash’s interpretation of the Semichut HaParshiot is understandable in the sense that the methodology of this Rabbinic text is to look for any and all connections that could be made when two topics are juxtaposed next to one another in the biblical text, what is difficult re RaShI is that he chooses to cite this type of Midrash only when a textual difficulty is solved by the interpretation. However, since in this case, the juxtaposition is obvious due to both events taking place in Refidim, why did RaShI see fit to cite the Midrash’s interpretation, when the reason for why the incidents are placed next to one another seems not to demand any sort of additional explanation?

ב. Siftei Chachamim offers two explanations for Mizrachi’s question:

a. Gur Aryeh: The verb “ויבא” is inappropriate, and “ויצא”, as in the case of Devarim 2:32 “And Sichon went out to meet us” describing a military attack, would have been expected to be used regarding Amalek’s attack. Consequently, RaShI looked for an internal connection between the two events, i.e., Amalek came as a result of something that the Jews had done/said.

b.  Nachalat Yaakov: Since it had already been established that the people were encamped at Refidim (17:1) and it later states that they journeyed away from Refidim (19:2), the mention of Refidim yet again in 17:8 is superfluous. The additional usage of the place name suggests that it was something that took place in this location that generated Amalek’s attack.

ג. The concept underlying the Midrash is that God’s Abstractness leads people to either take for granted His Existence or even consider His non-Existence, so to speak. Consequently, when there is some need that is going unfulfilled, it raises questions in the minds of skeptics or non-believers whether or not Hashgacha Pratit is operating.  Such doubts precipitate the creation of a situation whereby it becomes obvious that God is indeed Present and Overseeing what is happening to the people. Regrettably, even after the rather powerful Revelation at Sinai, the people revert to another form of such doubts and fabricate the Golden Calf (Shemot 32).

2.  Perhaps RashI is bringing into line with the account of Amalek’s account in Shemot, what we are told about the incident in Devarim 25:17-9 :

Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath Given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God Giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget. 

RaShI explains the underlined phrase as follows:

כל הנחשלים אחריך - חסרי כח מחמת חטאם, שהיה הענן פולטן:

Lacking in strength due to their sin, that the Cloud had expelled them (from its protection).

If the victims of Amalek’s attack were not being protected by the Cloud of Glory emanating from God, then everyone else was under the Cloud and had nothing to fear from the marauding Amalekites. Nevertheless, Moshe felt that the objects of attack, however undeserving of defense they may have been due to their spiritual transgressions, were deserving of protection. Moshe therefore gives Yehoshua the order to expose himself and those who would fight along with him to Amalek in order to remove the threat that was levied against the Jews lacking in Divine Protection.

מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בשלח - מסכתא דויהי פתיחתא

(שמ' יג:כא) "וה' הולך לפניהם יומם", נמצאת אומר שבעה עננים הם והשם הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן ועננך עומד עליהם ובעמוד ענן (במדבר יד יד) ובהאריך הענן (שם /במדבר/ ט יט) ובהעלות הענן ואם לא יעלה הענן כי ענן ה' על המשכן (שמות מ לו - לח) הא שבעה עננים ארבעה מארבע רוחותיהם אחד למעלה ואחד למטה אחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם כל הנמוך מגביהו וכל הגבוה משפילו שנ' כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו והיה העקוב למישור והרכסים לבקעה (ישעיה מ ד) והיה מכה נחשים ועקרבים מכבד ומרבץ לפניהם. ר' יהודה אומר שלשה עשר עננים היו שנים שנים לכל רוח ורוח שנים מלמעלה ושנים מלמטה ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם. ר' יאשיה אומר ארבעה אחד לפניהם ואחד לאחריהם אחד למעלה ואחד למטה.

3. Maskil LeDavid explains that the sentence appears to be missing a future “being” verb:

שמות פרק יז

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים בְּיָדִי:

And Moses said unto Joshua: 'Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek; tomorrow I am standing on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.'

Without additional clarification, it sounds like Moshe will begin to stand now even if the battle will take place at a later point. Consequently, RaShI clarifies that Moshe’s intention is that he will take up his position as soon as the battle begins, which appears to be the next day.